Friday, February 13, 2009

This is part 10 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link).

Jay Dyer says:

9) "[A consistent Calvinist must be] Un-deified, since the Logos' holy Flesh is not your food, because there was no true henotic union."

I answer:

a) The Calvinist Position (whether right doctrine or error let Scripture decide)

We do eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood, not in a grotesque, cannibalistic and literally physical sense, but spiritually.

1 Corinthians 10:1-41 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Indeed, eating and drinking Christ can be Scripturally said to be necessary for salvation:

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Of course, Jesus does not mean, in John 6:53, physical life but spiritual life. After all, the physical eating of the sacrifices was done under the shadows and types of the Old Testament administration:

1 Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

The Israelites ate the physical flesh of the sacrifices that were sacrificed on the altar. Through those physical signs, the spiritual reality of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice on the cross was depicted.

Christians are united by faith with Christ. This is accomplished by the death of Christ, who reconciled us to God, and purchased for us the adoption of sons and as well through the work of the Holy Spirit applying the benefits of Christ's death to us. Thus, we have become the children of God by adoption. Thus, we are become through the love of God, the sons of God. Thus, in the words of the Psalmist:

Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

This is a harmonious union between Christ and the church (all believers), which is likened to the union of love between husband and wife (see, for example, Ephesians 5:25).

b) The Accusation Disputed

The concept of "deification" (in Roman Catholicism - sometimes also called "divinization") or the related concept of "theosis" (in Eastern Orthodoxy) is an easily misunderstood topic, and it is hard to locate good explanations of this concept from modern Catholicism (the Eastern Orthodox explanations seem to generally equate theosis with salvation).

One Roman Cardinal stated: "above all, keep in mind that the words with which Saint Paul described his prodigious deification: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Gal 2:20) can be applied to each and every Christian." Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos (May 15, 2000). Likewise, a joint commission for dialog with Eastern Orthodoxy, defined the Roman position as "The soteriological meaning of the faith: every expression of the faith should envision the human being's final destiny, as a child of God by grace, in his or her deification (theosis) through victory over death and in the transfiguration of creation."

Pope John Paul II stated:

The Spirit of the Lord not only destroys sin, but also accomplishes the sanctification and divinization of man. “God chose” us, St Paul says, “from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth” (2 Thes 2:13).

Let us look more closely at what this “sanctification-divinization” consists of.

The Holy Spirit is “Person-Love; he is Person-Gift” (Dominum et Vivificantem, n. 10). This love given by the Father, received and reciprocated by the Son, is communicated to the one redeemed, who thus becomes a “new man” (Eph 4:24), a “new creation” (Gal 6:15). We Christians are not only purified from sin, but are also reborn and sanctified. We receive a new life, since we have become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pt 1:4); we are “called children of God; and so we are!” (1 Jn 3:1). It is the life of grace: the free gift by which God makes us partakers of his Trinitarian life.

(General Audience, July 22, 1998)

With these expressions in mind (and keeping in mind that these may be very inadequate explanations of the entire concept intended by the term "deification"), a claim that someone is "un-deified" is really (at its heart) a claim that they do not have faith and/or the new birth: that they are not a Christian. No consistent Calvinist, of course, could be an unbeliever or an unregenerate person. (That is not to say that every person who calls himself a Calvinist is saved, and no one should place their hope in the fact that they label themselves a "Calvinist" or know what "TULIP" stands for.)

Furthermore, the grant of new life - the regeneration of man - is an important concept in Calvinistic soteriology. Regeneration produces a change in man's heart, opening his spiritual eyes to the truth of the gospel, so that a man sees and believes to the saving of his soul. This renovation of man's spiritual faculties is one way in which man is given life by God, and the eternal life that comes from being justified in God's sight is another way in which God gives us life. He provides and sustains the believer. This too is central to the Calvinistic tenet of perseverance of the saints. So, not only could no consistent Calvinist be an unbeliever, no consistent Calvinist could reject the idea of God giving life to believers.

The label "deification" itself, however, is problematic. Christians will immediately recall the temptation that Satan gave to Eve:

Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Man's desire to be a god (or to be equal to God) is one of the most alluring aspects of many false religions, from the very beginning. Thus, great caution should be exercised with respect to those who suggest that through union with Christ we become "deified." That is not to say that every such label is automatically wrong. Recall Jesus' words:

John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken ...

Nevertheless, Paul explained that this cannot contradict the central Christian tenet of Monotheism:

1 Corinthians 8:5-65 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

So, even while such respectable theologians as Augustine ("We mustn't find it incredible, brothers and sisters, that human beings become gods, that is, that those who were human beings become gods." - Sermon 23B, Section 1) and Athanasius ("For the Son of God became man, that we might become God." De Inc. 54:3 as quoted in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church") may use this terminology, we would do well to be more gaurded, particularly in view of the error of some (especially Mormons) to take such statements in a very literal way.

The term "henotic union" is not a standard term. I'm not sure if Dyer really means to use that expression (although he uses it several times on his website) or whether he is trying to use the expression "hypostatic union." The hypostatic union is the true doctrine that Jesus is both truly man and truly God.

One reason to guess that Dyer means "hypostatic union" is that He makes the comment that I (TurretinFan) have "written what [TurretinFan] perceives to be a response to the accusation I made that Calvinists are Nestorians, in that they end up denying the henotic [sic] union." (source) Of course, Nestorianism is normally defined as a denial of the hypostatic union (see response to Nestorian accusation).

In any event, the term "henotic" means irenic or harmony-promoting. An "henotic union" would, grammatically speaking, seem to be a union that promotes harmony. The union between Christ and the elect is the most harmonious union imaginable between Creator and creature. Indeed, Calvinism - as a central aspect - promotes the concept of God's special abounding love for the elect, which is the basis of Christ's sacrificial death on their behalf. Thus, no consistent Calvinism could deny a henotic union between Christ and the elect.

c) The Accusation Redirected

Catholicism is full of unbelief. This is apparent, at a minimum, from the high level of nominalism. Now, someone should rightly complain that I'm comparing consistent Calvinism with inconsistent Catholicism. Very well. Consistent Tridentine Catholicism anathematizes the gospel - insisting that man's salvation is obtained by cooperating with grace.

One cannot be saved by any gospel except that preached by Peter (Acts 4:12) and every other gospel is anathema, no matter who teaches it (Galatians 1:8-9). Those who seek salvation by works (whether that be cooperation with grace or any other works) will not attain to righteousness, because that is not by faith (Romans 9:31-33).

That is not to say that every person who is part of the Roman Catholic church is unsaved, but there is no salvation through obedience to the gospel that Rome teaches. I know this is a hard doctrine for many soft-hearted people, but God is a Jealous God (Exodus 34:14, Deuteronomy 4:24 and 6:15, Joshua 24:19, and Nahum 1:2). He does not accept strange fire (see, for example, Numbers 26:61) or even apparently sincere acts that are contrary to his revealed will (2 Samuel 6:3-7), which is sometimes hard for believers to accept (2 Samuel 6:8-9).

Recall Jesus' words:

Luke 13:23-2423 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, 24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

And again:

Matthew 7:13-1413 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

And finally:

Matthew 7:21-2321 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Salvation comes through union with Christ, justification by grace alone through faith alone, not through works, or else it would not be by grace (Romans 11:6 and 2 Timothy 1:9). That's the Scriptural truth that Rome has placed under its anathema.

20 comments:

There is so much in this reply TF, one just has to rejoice seeing you have opened wide the proverbial candy store door and the goods inside are all available and are all on sale, "free", come and "receive" them, not "free", come and "get" them"!

No, no, what I get is what I get. What God gives me is what I receive for His Glory!

First things first then.

Consider what Paul was saying, teaching, instructing and developing here with these Words of Scripture to the Roman Church of his day:

Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

I would best sum up the continual partaking of the Sacraments as Christ's institution to keep fresh on our minds, that, now that we have been baptised into Christ's death, we too now can live in "newness" of Life in Him. We partake of the body and blood of Christ as a "sacrament" to remind us as Paul does there at Romans 8:9 this too: "....the body is dead because of sin....". We must come to see and realize and then "live" out in our lifetime the same thing, our body is dead because of sin yet we are alive because of His righteousness. And just as you noted above in response, the children of Israel were required to eat sacrifices that were put to death, "innocent, pure, undefiled animals", by the hands of the guilty and then consumed by them so that God would then convey upon them His innocence, purity and undefiled state of Being, again and again and again, year after year! Now with the body and blood sacrifice of Christ, once, for all His Elect, we too, partake, as a reminder, of this Divine sacrifice, made once for all and the "union" is now possible by that sacrifice for God's Elect with God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, forever after!

Consider the union and the full effects affected upon those early Disciples when reading these words from the Book of Acts:

Act 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. Act 4:33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

Now I would go down two paths with this verse. One pathway is the "oneness" of one's heart and soul with Christ brought about by God Himself through Christ Himself in the Power of the Holy Ghost Himself.

And two, the great grace that envelopes us all true believers once we enter into that "state" of being in oneness of heart and soul with Christ and His Church.

Now, for the oneness. How did that happen that these disciples were of one heart and one soul?

Christ is the Head of this body and so it makes sense that from the "Head" the body would function as a whole. Peter spoke during a debate on how one is made one in heart and soul with Christ and His Church this way:

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Paul writes something in two places. I want to make note of the Greek he uses in these two verses as they should cement the reader to the fact that without the Handiwork of God, there would be no oneness of affect with our heart and soul to His Son or the Holy Ghost or Him. If God does not make us one with Him, we are not one with Him no matter what we believe or say!

Remember that the demons believed and are not saved!!

The first Greek word I want to note Paul uses is this word "zoopieo" used here:

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

The English word is "alive". The Greek word is "zoopieo":

ζωοποιέωzōopoieōdzo-op-oy-eh'-oFrom the same as G2226 and G4160; to (re-) vitalize (literally or figuratively): - make alive, give life, quicken.

I will assert with strong conviction that it is not enough for us to be "just" made alive/zoopoieo.

No, once we are made alive, God wants to bring us to a full union with Himself through a life of discipleship "in" Christ and the Holy Ghost and the Holy Christian, "Catholic" Church!

This is what Jesus is teaching here:

Joh 14:20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. Joh 14:21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." Joh 14:22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?" Joh 14:23 Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Joh 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.

God grants us by His mercy to be one in heart and soul with Himself, Christ, the Holy Ghost and the Holy Christian Church!

Why do I make this assertion?

Because of the use of another Greek word by Paul in two places.

The Greek word is "suzoopoieo" and is found only in two places in the New Testament used by Paul, here: Ephesians 2:5 and Colossians 2:13.

The Greek word:

suzōopoieōsood-zo-op-oy-eh'-oFrom G4862 and G2227; to reanimate conjointly with (figuratively): - quicken together with.

What does Paul write in Romans? Paul hammers away at our dullness when he writes this:

Rom 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. Rom 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?

Now, hopefully I have been lucid enough on this point of "union" with Christ, I would now turn to my second pathway, the Grace of God.

Paul writes this:

1Co 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 1Co 15:11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

and

Gal 2:19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Gal 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

and

Gal 3:22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Gal 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. Gal 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Here we can see that once we are "made alive" "made zoopoieo" by the sacrifice of Christ, His body and blood, we are to go on to a "maturity" in "Grace" and we are to live as one heart and soul with the Holy Ghost the rest of our natural days and in unity with God Our Heavenly Father in Christ and the Holy Christian Church.

One, once we are made one with Him, reanimated and conjoined to Christ by the Hand of God and two, we have been joined to Him who is the firstborn from the dead, we are to live the rest of our natural days in the Grace of God fulfilling our commission, the purpose for our existence in this world governed by the god of this world, the devil!

Act 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.

"Henotic" union was one of St. Cyril's favorite terms for how the Incarnation worked. You leave place it as [sic] as if I misused terms, implying that hypostatic was what I meant. Once again, you show unfamiliarity with the issues in question. You really should read McGuckin's "St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy."

Not only isn't "henotic union" a standard theological term (sorry, it just isn't), it isn't a term used in McGuckin's work either, as far as I can find. He does mention the concept of henosis - which I could imagine forms the root of "henotic" in your terminology. But henosis for Cyril itself means "union."

But the label of the union is still the "hypostatic union" - as can be seen at page 150 of the work:

"Thus, the doctrine of hypostatic union was, for Cyril, one of the strongest ways he could think of to argue that the personal subject of the incarnation was none other than the Divine Word."

You and I both know you haven't read this book, and you're going to tell me what is in it? Henosis is what I am referring to, and you do not hold to a hypostatic union if you simultaneously hold to Nesotorian positions.

Again, if you read that book you'll discover that Nestorius didn't necessarily deny a kind of union that was hypostatic. What He did deny was that there was one subject of all the Incarnate acts, the Logos.

You do not have an orthodox Christology, as much as you would like to have one. I hope that it results just from an ignorance of the issues.

This is why numerous Calvinists have come to me as a result of our discussions and said as much. Several families are already considering conversion.

When you want the Father to damn the Son, you hold that. And, btw, you know as well I as do that reformed theologians have held to this, and in my response I'm going to provide you your quotes. Boettner and Berkhof do, for starters.

"Again, if you read that book you'll discover that Nestorius didn't necessarily deny a kind of union that was hypostatic. What He did deny was that there was one subject of all the Incarnate acts, the Logos."

Multiple subjects would seem to lead to a lack of hypostatic union, would it not? I think you're drawing a distinction without a meaningful difference.

"You do not have an orthodox Christology, as much as you would like to have one."

I have a Biblical and consequently orthodox Christology. Whether my Christology agrees with Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism (who themselves have Christological controversies) is another matter. It's important not to confuse them.

"I hope that it results just from an ignorance of the issues."

It could just be that you're wrong, Jay. Given the mistakes and conflations I've seen in your presentations, that's my current theory, which is open to change, if you can demonstrate otherwise. I'm in the process of reviewing your audio response now, which may clear things up for me, if that (i.e. my own ignorance) is indeed the problem.

"This is why numerous Calvinists have come to me as a result of our discussions and said as much. Several families are already considering conversion."

I hope that's not true, but sadly there are many people who have not been well taught, even in Calvinistic circles.

"When you want the Father to damn the Son, you hold that. And, btw, you know as well I as do that reformed theologians have held to this, and in my response I'm going to provide you your quotes. Boettner and Berkhof do, for starters."

"You and I both know you haven't read this book, and you're going to tell me what is in it? Henosis is what I am referring to, and you do not hold to a hypostatic union if you simultaneously hold to Nesotorian positions."

a) Yes, I'm telling you what's in it, and what's not in it.

b) Even the term "henosis" - while it may be very popular in that particular book - isn't much of a standard theological term in the West. I cannot speak as definitively about the East, but that's ok.

c) My main suggestion here, though, is to be careful. You got dinged for using the term "henotic union," which is definitely the wrong term.

Matt wrote: "You are critical of "cooperation." Would you similarly reject it if understood in an Augustinian or Thomistic sense? http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm"

I reject the term as used in a Tridentine sense. As I have mentioned elsewhere, post-Tridentine Thomism involves a number of apparent contradictions. Augustine's use of the term cooperation is rather different from that of Trent, so I don't really see a close comparison between the two.

Can you point me to where you show these alleged contradictions in post-Tridentine Thomism?

I've already asked for you to show me where you demonstrate that Trent excludes Augustine's sense of co-operation, in part 8, I think. Thanks!

By the way, I think it's funny that you have these page-long conversations with hotheads like Matthew Bellisario but that you won't substantively engage with me here. It's just a bit strange, but that's OK. Maybe it's just because you've already attempted to address these issues and don't want to re-invent the wheel. I understand that. But maybe I can comment on your older posts?

"Can you point me to where you show these alleged contradictions in post-Tridentine Thomism?"

I cannot do so off-hand, and I don't have time now to dredge them up. Thus, if you like, you may take my commentary on this point with the grain of salt that I have just asserted this, not shown it.

"I've already asked for you to show me where you demonstrate that Trent excludes Augustine's sense of co-operation, in part 8, I think. Thanks!"

Yes, you've asked. As I noted there, the burden is really on the one who wants Augustine's cloak, just as the burden is on one who wants to claim that his doctrine is Scriptural.

"By the way, I think it's funny that you have these page-long conversations with hotheads like Matthew Bellisario but that you won't substantively engage with me here. It's just a bit strange, but that's OK. Maybe it's just because you've already attempted to address these issues and don't want to re-invent the wheel. I understand that. But maybe I can comment on your older posts?"

Bellisario's empty-headed arguments don't take long to address. Your comments, for the most part, being more studied, take longer to address.

Additionally, some of the points that you raise (such as the idea that Thomists are the true Augustinians - as opposed to either the Jesuits/Molinists or the Calvinists) are interesting but further from the issues that I intend to address.

I have limited time, and - of course - that means I end up sometimes picking the low-hanging fruit that Bellisario so generously provides.

But I agree that this discussion almost amounts to a threadjack. For that, I apologize.

It is also worth noting, by the way, that some Calvinists of the late-sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (even delegates at Dordt) take basically the same view that I am taking here. They believed that their views on efficient and sufficient grace, free will, predestination, etc. (though not the sola fide or the formal cause of justification or anything of that sort) were in conformity to the teachings of Augustine, Prosper, the Lombard, Aquinas, Soto, Banez, etc. They saw themselves as fighting in the same battle with the Thomist Dominicans (and the great Catholic tradition, broadly construed) against the Arminians and Jesuits. It's an interesting story...

But, anyway, I don't think I'm in left-field here, even from a Calvinist perspective...

To clarify - I'm not saying you are in left field, and I agree that there are interesting and reasonable comparisons between the Calvinist/Remonstrant controversy and the Thomist/Molinist controversy.

I even hope, at some point, to participate in a four-way discussion with a Thomist (alreadly lined up), a Molinist, and an Arminian. We'll see if that ever pans out. If it does, it should shed further light on the issue, I hope.

Copyright Notice - (C) 2006-2011 TurretinFan

This blog tries to comply with international standards of "fair use" and "fair dealing" in its use of copied material. If you feel that a use of your material is "unfair" contact the blog owner: contact information is available on the blog owner's profile.Contrariwise, those same international standards permit you to make "fair use" and "fair dealing" with the material presented here.More